In an article entitled The Problem With Americas Colleges and The Solution, published on September 3, 2002, David Horowitz outlined the problems that he sees with college and university campuses across America. In a fairly detailed manner, he discussed the lack of diversity concerning political ideologies and viewpoints among faculty members. He correctly said that universities and colleges have an overload of generally liberal professors, and, quite often, only have one or two token conservatives, if that.

In the article, he went on to discuss his ideas for a solution to this problem. His ideas, which are condensed into an Academic Bill of Rights, focus on assuring that there will be an equal number of conservative and liberal professors on any given campus, public and private alike. In his list of solutions, he gives this as an action to take in ensuring academic freedom: Conduct an inquiry into political bias in the hiring process for faculty and administrators 

Horowitz is pushing for state legislatures to become involved in this so called Bill of Rights, and Colorado, Georgia, and Missouri are on the verge of doing so. To quote Horowitzs article again: By adding the categories of political and religious affiliation to Title IX and other existing legislation, the means are readily available to redress an intolerable situation involving illegal and unconstitutional hiring methods along with teaching practices that are an abuse of academic freedom.

I agree with Horowitzs premise  that having less liberal campuses is ideal and necessary. However, I disagree with his way of doing it. His solution gives the government deep and powerful control of the leadership of colleges and universities. Imagine making it a law that the governments investigate the politics of every professor or administrator on every campus in America. Far from freedom, this is a system that would not only allow for the hiring and firing of professionals based on their political beliefs; it is also giving the government too much power and control.

On another note  does Horowitz really buy into the popular notion that the solution to all problems is a new law? This seems not only foolish, but scary. There is the precedent that this sets to consider. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, isnt it possible, if this becomes a full fledged law that it will expand to other markets? Isnt it foreseeable that one day well have to check a little box on our job applications - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party - it would make for a long application.

Yet another question is - how could this be effectively implemented? Would it be limited to voting records, or would interviews be conducted? How far back would they go? How deep would they dig? What about professors who effectively covered up their ideology or simply didnt want to discuss it? Would there be lie detector tests?

Who would decide whether or not a professor was conservative or liberal enough to teach a specific course? The government? The school? Would the level of ideology required change from department to department?

I thought that a professor was supposed to be a professor, not a political theorist. I thought David Horowitz wanted to take politics out of the classroom. Instead, however, this solution pushes it to the very forefront of everything that professors do. Instead of freeing the campuses from dirty politics, it makes dirty politics the name of the game from the moment a potential faculty member sets foot on a campus.

Instead of freeing the campuses from dirty politics, it makes dirty politics the name of the game from the moment a potential faculty member sets foot on a campus.

Thats what it is right now. TAX MONEY subsidizes Academia, yet they pursue radical politics not representative of the public at large. A conservative proffessor appointment can be vetoed by a single Marxist Proffessor. The only way to make the faculty responsive is to squeeze their funding. Does the author have another plan, or should we just wring our hands forever?

ALL, I repeat, ALL of my eldest son's professors, are raving liberals who bring their bias into the classroom.

This semester, all of mine are, too. My Constitutional law professor is farther to the left then Howard Dean. He never fails to spend at least half of the class time bashing conservative thought, especially as it relates to the Constitution. Strict constructionists are his worst enemy. He calls Justice Scalia every name in the book, and he does it every class.

Horowitz's solution at least attempts to address that problem, absent SOME kind of change, education will continue to deteriorate into brainwashing.....NOT education.

True. I'm not denying the problem, and I'm not denying that the education system needs change. However, I do not think that involving the government in universities (especially private universities) is the proper solution. I don't want the government choosing my professors.

12
posted on 08/29/2003 10:50:49 AM PDT
by Cathryn Crawford
(Ummm, moron. It's not free. It was paid for with taxes.)

When I was an undergraduate, I majored in economics. I remember the faculty being fairly well balanced politically. I guess I'm just naturally inclined to be a devil's advocate because I remember having a tendency to ask questions and take positions that were adverse to the prejudices of each particular professor. I honestly don't remember ever feeling that I was treated unfairly by any professor for challenging his/her views and actually developed some close and friendly relationships with some of them.

Most of what I learned as an undergraduate came from the books that I read and not from any personal beliefs of professors. In my particular major, the trick was to really master the underlying principles and to understand exactly how they were derived. Once that was accomplished, the peculiar prejudices of any professor became more or less irrelevant.

Thats what it is right now. TAX MONEY subsidizes Academia, yet they pursue radical politics not representative of the public at large. A conservative proffessor appointment can be vetoed by a single Marxist Proffessor. The only way to make the faculty responsive is to squeeze their funding.

IMHO, the only way to end these types of problems is to eliminate government funding for education completely at all levels.

14
posted on 08/29/2003 11:04:14 AM PDT
by Sparta
(Sending the UN back to Iraq is like sending the Taliban back to Afghanistan)

He calls Justice Scalia every name in the book, and he does it every class.

Funny, I remember my own Con Law prof. He was a proud liberal, as most of them are, but we got off on a tangent about Scalia one day. His take on the good judge was that, as an unabashed liberal, he disagreed with virtually everything that Scalia stood for. However, as an honest unabashed liberal, he couldn't help but admit that Justice Scalia was also one of the most brilliant legal minds to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

That's what you need, and what I don't mind - honest and forthright liberal professors ;)

16
posted on 08/29/2003 11:17:03 AM PDT
by general_re
(Today is a day for firm decisions! Or is it?)

My Con law proffesor talks about how the Supreme Court is full of brilliant legal minds, but he turns into a raving lunatic at the mention of Scalia's name. Sometimes I'm tempted to just whisper, "Scalia...Scalia...Scalia" during class to see what happens.

18
posted on 08/29/2003 11:22:10 AM PDT
by Cathryn Crawford
(Ummm, moron. It's not free. It was paid for with taxes.)

My Con law proffesor talks about how the Supreme Court is full of brilliant legal minds, but he turns into a raving lunatic at the mention of Scalia's name.

See, now that's clearly the mark of someone who has abandoned any pretense at objective scholarship. Agree with him or disagree with him if you like, but only dilettantes and fools can deny the intellect of Antonin Scalia. And I don't agree with Scalia on everything, but I can make a very good case that in terms of pure intellectual firepower, there is Scalia and Oliver Wendell Holmes in one camp, and everyone else in the other. And honest liberals who are serious students of the court cannot help but also admit that he is brilliant - as opposed to your professor, who is either a fool, a fraud, or not a serious scholar. Either way, that sort of attitude is the attitude of someone who does not belong in academia.

19
posted on 08/29/2003 11:31:17 AM PDT
by general_re
(Today is a day for firm decisions! Or is it?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.